Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clashing Over Conversion: “Who is a Jew” and Media Representations of an Israeli Supreme Court Decision

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Religion-state issues are particularly contentious in the Israeli context and they are often resolved by litigation before the Supreme Court in its capacity as the High Court of Justice. A recent controversy that reached Israel’s High Court of Justice in 2005 involved a petition to recognize the validity of non-Orthodox conversions to Judaism. This paper examines the role of the press in constructing the controversy and the image of the High Court of Justice by analyzing all the reports and editorials in both an elite and in a popular newspaper, published from a week before the decision was issued until to 1 month afterwards. It looks at the visual, inter-textual and linguistic features of the articles and analyzes the frames used in representing the Court, the petitioners, and the controversy. We found that two distinct frames were used by the papers to convey the essence of the controversy in the Tushbeim case. While the organizing idea in Haaretz, the elite newspaper, was one of Israel as a civic state, Yediot, the popular newspaper, emphasized the religious dimension of Israeli nationhood. Moreover, contrary to widespread perceptions of the popular press, it presented a wider range of views than did the elite newspaper, which tended to praise the Court and to support the decision. However, both papers avoided challenges to the basic issue of whether religious authorities should control the definition of the character of Israel as a Jewish State. Thus, the media in effect defined the terms of the struggle over the Jewish identity of the state within consensual boundaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At the time of the decision there were two popular daily newspapers in Israel, Maariv and Yediot Aharonot commonly referred to as Yediot. Yediot is chosen to represent the popular press in most studies because of its wider circulation (60% of daily newspaper readers read Yediot in 2005, compared to 30% who read Maariv).

  2. According to the Proclamation of Independence, a constituent assembly should have prepared a constitution by October 1, 1948. However, because of disputes largely due to a potential clash between a secular constitution and Jewish religious law, the plan to enact a constitution did not materialize [23].

  3. The Supreme Court sits in Jerusalem and its area of jurisdiction is the entire country. Currently, there are twelve justices out of a possible fifteen serving on the Supreme Court. Unlike the American Supreme Court where the entire bench presides over all cases, the Israeli Supreme Court usually sits in panels of three. However, there is also a possibility of expanding the panel. The difference between the Israeli and American courts with respect to the initial (default) size of the bench is an outcome of the fact that the US Supreme Court's exercise of jurisdiction is primarily discretionary, whereas in Israel the Supreme Court hears appeals by right in civil and criminal matters and serves as a court of first instance in most matters relating to petitions against state actions.

  4. A ruling of the Supreme Court is binding upon every court, other than the Supreme Court itself. This is the principle of binding precedent (stare decisis) in Israel.

  5. The High Court of Justice grants relief through orders such as injunction, mandamus, and habeas corpus as well as through declaratory judgments.

  6. An early example is the area of family law. As a carryover from the Ottoman rule (1517–1917) and the British Mandate in Palestine (1917–1948), matters of personal status, such as marriage, divorce, burial, and inheritance are under the sole jurisdiction of religious authorities. From the British Mandate's recognition of the Orthodox authorities as the sole authorities on issues of Jewish law, Orthodox Jewish law has become binding on the Jews of Israel with the exception of those who hold foreign nationality and could contract civil marriages before consular officers. Political maneuvers by the religious parties in the 1950s and 1960s led to further imposition of religious norms.

  7. For the variety of opinions see Ben- Rafael [4]. This book comprises the replies sent by 50 scholars to Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, in answer to a question he sent asking them to define "who is a Jew". The question was sent in response to the problem of registering the children of a non-Jewish parent [35].

  8. Oleh not only means an immigrant but is a value-laden word in Hebrew. It means going up. The term is used only with respect to Jews who immigrate to Israel, as opposed to non-Jewish immigrants. Israelis who leave Israel to other countries are called yordim which means going down from a high place to a lower one.

  9. The acronym for the financial assistance provided to Jewish immigrants is Absorption Basket. http://www.moia.gov.il/Moia_en/FinancialAssistance/AbsorptionBasket.htm?SearchText=.

  10. PM Ben-Gurion stated the following during the introduction of the Law of Return to the Knesset: "This is not a Jewish state merely because Jews are the majority of its population. It is a state for Jews everywhere. The Law of Return embodies the central purpose of our state" [28].

  11. H.C. Shalit v. Minister of Interior, 23(1) P.D. 447, translated at Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel, Special Volume, 35 (1971). The Shalit case involved Benjamin Shalit, a reserve officer in the Israeli Navy, who married a non-Jewish woman while studying in Edinburgh. His wife joined him in Israel and received a resident certificate. In her ID card registration documents, Shalit's wife declared herself a British national with no religion. The Shalits attempted to register their Israeli-born children as having no religion in the rubric of religion and as Jews in the rubric of nationality. The registration clerk in the Ministry of Interior refused to make the distinction between religion and nationality and suggested that Shalit leave both the "nationality" and religion" rubrics in the ID card blank. Shalit appealed to the Supreme Court and won by a 5–4 majority decision. The decision was based on technical grounds, specifically questioning the scope of the independent discretion of the registration clerk. However, the Court ruling also implicitly recognized an alternative interpretation to the Orthodox definition of Judaism. The court ordered the Ministry of Interior to register Shalit's children as belonging to the Jewish nation and to leave their religious affiliation blank. The Shalit ruling triggered a public storm and political pressures that culminated in an amendment to the Law of Return and the Registry Law [1, 33, 38].

  12. H.C. 1031/93 Eliana Pessaro v. Minister of Interior, 49(4) P.D. 49, abridged in Jewish law Association Studies (2000).

  13. The Committee (known as the Neeman Committee after the name of its chairperson) reached a compromise proposal to create an institution for the preparation of converts and to oversee the conversion process. According to the proposal, the conversion institute would be operated jointly by the three denominations, but only Orthodox Rabbis would conduct the conversion ceremony itself. This proposal would have granted recognition by the State of Israel and by the Rabbinate to the Reform and Conservative movements in Israel in matters of personal status. See Keinon [31, p. 1].

  14. HC 5070/95 Naamat v. Minister of Interior, 56(2) PD 721. abridged in 31 Justice pp. 37–42 (2202).

  15. The Court expanded the panel in Naamat case to 11 out of the 15 justices serving at the time. This is a clear indication of the perceived importance of the dispute.

  16. HC 2597/99 Tushbeim v. Minister of Interior (ruling given on 31.5.2004).

  17. In Hebrew, the term is literally" hop-over" conversions.

  18. HC 2597/99 Tushbeim v. Minister of Interior (ruling given on 31.5.2004) Id. Par. 19.

  19. Haaretz, 30-3-05, p. 6a.

  20. Haaretz, 30-3-05, p. 6a.

  21. Haaretz, 30-3-05, p. 6a.

  22. Yediot, 1-4-05, p. 3.

  23. Haaretz, 1-4-05, p. 3a.

  24. Yediot, 1-4-05, p. 3.

  25. Haaretz, 1-4-05, p. 3a.

  26. Yediot, 1-4-05, p. 3.

  27. Yediot, 1-4-05, p. 3.

  28. Haaretz, 1-4-05, p. 1. There were in fact 15 individual petitioners, but the International Organization for Progressive Judaism was also listed among the petitioners.

  29. In the official version of the decision, she was listed as Castro, and that was the name she was given in Yediot. Haaretz referred to her as Chapana. It is not clear where they obtained that name.

  30. 1-4-05, p. 3.

  31. Yediot, 1-4-05, p. 3.

  32. Yediot, 1-4-05, p. 3. This image of a multitude of foreign workers who are just waiting to abuse the decision and convert in order to obtain the rights of a citizen was commonly used by those objecting to the decision.

  33. Yediot, 8-4-05, Sabbath Supplement, p. 22.

  34. Yediot, 8-4-05, Sabbath Supplement, p. 13.

  35. Contrary to commonly held notions, Haaretz, the elite newspaper has more photos than the popular press, at least on a prominent story such as this one. The difference is in the size of the photos. The main photo in Yediot takes up more of the page than those in Haaretz.

  36. Haaretz, 1-4-05, p. 2a.

  37. Yediot, 1-4-05, p. 3.

  38. Haaretz, 1-4-05, p. 3a.

  39. Haaretz, 13-4-05, p. 2b.

References

  1. Baer, Noah. 1971. Who is a Jew? A determination of ethnic status for purposes of the Israeli Population Registry Act: Shalit v Minister of the Interior (Israel 1969). Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 10: 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baird, Vanessa, and Amy Gangl. 2006. Shattering the myth of legality: The impact of the media’s framing of Supreme Court procedures on perceptions of fairness. Political Psychology 27: 597–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barak, Gregg. 2007. Mediatizing law and order: Applying Cottle’s architecture of communicative frames to the social construction of crime and justice. Crime, Media, Culture 3: 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer. 2002. Jewish identities: Fifty intellectuals answer Ben-Gurion. Leyden and Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bogoch, Bryna, and Yifat Holzman-Gazit. 2008. Mutual bonds: Media frames and the Israeli High Court of Justice. Law and Social Inquiry 33: 53–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, Sheila. 2003. Crime and law in media culture. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clawson, Rosalee A., Harry C. Strine, and Eric Waltenburg. 2003. Framing Supreme Court decisions: The mainstream versus the black press. Journal of Black Studies 33: 784–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, Richard. 1994. Decisions and images: The Supreme Court and the press. Englewood Cliffs: N.J. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Deacon, David, Michael Pickering, Peter Golding, and Graham Murdock. 1999. Researching communications: A practical guide to methods in media and cultural analysis. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Vreese, Claes H. 2005. News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal 13: 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Edelman, Lauren B., Stephen E. Abraham, and Howard S. Erlanger. 1992. Professional construction of the legal environment: The inflated threat of wrongful discharge. Law & Society Review 26: 47–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eisenstadt, Samuel N. 1981. Cultural traditions and political dynamics. British Journal of Sociology 32: 151–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Englard, Izhak. 1985. Law and religion in Israel. American Journal of Comparative Law 35: 185–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Entman, Robert M. 2004. Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ericson, Richard V. 1995. Crime and the media. Dartmouth: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ewick, Patricia, and Susan Silbey. 1998. The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Friedman, Lawrence M. 1989. Law, lawyers and popular culture. Yale Law Journal 98: 1570–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Foust, Christina, William Murphy and Chelsea Stow. 2008. Global warming and apocalyptic rhetoric: A critical frame analysis of U.S. popular and elite press coverage from 1997–2007. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th annual convention, TBA, San Diego, CA, Nov 20, 2008. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p260125_index.html. Accessed 25 March 2009.

  21. Galanter, Marc. 2006. Lowering the bar: Lawyer jokes and legal culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gavison, Ruth. 1985. The controversy over Israel’s bill of rights. Israel Yearbook of Human Rights 151: 113–154.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gies, Lieve. 2008. Law and the media: The future of an uneasy relationship. London: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gillespie, Marie, and Jason Toynbee. 2006. Analyzing media texts. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haltom, William. 1998. Reporting on the courts: How the mass media cover judicial actions. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Haltom, William, and Michael McCann. 2004. Distorting the law: Politics, media and the litigation crisis. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hazony, Yoram. 2000. The Jewish state: The struggle for Israel’s soul. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson-Cartee, Karen S. 2005. News narratives and news framing: Constructing political reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kamir, Orit. 2005. Why “law-and-film” and what does it actually mean?—A perspective. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies 19: 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Keinon, Herb. 1998. The panel recommendations. Jerusalem Post, 25 January, page 1.

  32. Kremnitzer, Mordechai, and Margit Cohen. 2005. Religion and the HCJ: Image and reality. Part two. A three-dimensional model for measuring judicial activism. Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lahav, Pnina. 2000. Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist century. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Liebman, Charles S. 1997. Religion, democracy and Israeli society. Amsterdam: Harwood.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Litvin, Baruch, and Sidney B. Hoenig (ed.). 1970. Jewish identity: Modern response and opinions on the registration of children of mixed marriages: David Ben-Gurion’s query to leaders of world Jewry—A documentary compilation. Jerusalem: Feldheim.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Matthes, Jorg, and Matthias Kohring. 2008. The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication 58: 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mooney, Annabelle. 2002. Human rights, linguistics and the law: The U.K. and beyond. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15: 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nesis, Lawrence. 1970. Who is a Jew? Manitoba Law Journal 4: 53–88.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nielsen, Laura Beth, and Aaron Beim. 2004. Media misrepresentations: Title VII, print media and public perceptions of discrimination litigation. Stanford Law and Policy Review 15: 101–130.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nir, Raphael, and Itzhak Roeh. 1992. Intifada coverage in the Israeli press: Popular and quality papers assume a rhetoric of conformity. Discourse & Society 3: 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nir, Raphael. 1994. Discourse analysis of news headlines. Hebrew Linguistics 37: 23–31. (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nobles, Robert, and Donald Schiff. 2000. Understanding miscarriages of justice: Law, the media, and the inevitability of crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Parenti, Michael. 1970. Power and politics: A view from the bottom. Journal of Politics 32: 501–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Redhead, Stephen. 1995. Unpopular cultures: The birth of law and popular culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Reese, Stephen D. 2007. The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Journal of Communication 57: 148–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosen, Robert Eli. 1990. Liberal battle zones and the study of law and the media. Law and Human Behavior 14: 511–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rubinstein, Amnon. 1967. State and religion in Israel. Journal of Contemporary History 2: 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sapir, Gideon. 2006. How should the court deal with a primary question that the legislature seeks to avoid: The Israeli controversy over who is a Jew as an illustration. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 39: 1233–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sarat, Austin, and Jonathan Simon. 2003. Cultural analysis, cultural studies and the situation of legal scholarship. In Cultural analysis, cultural studies and the law: Moving beyond legal realism, ed. Austin Sarat, and Jonathan Simon, 1–34. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sarat, Austin, and Stuart Scheingold. 2008. The cultural lives of cause lawyers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Sauvageau, Florian, David Schneiderman, and David Taras. 2006. The last word: Media coverage of the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sherwin, Richard K. 2000. When law goes pop: The vanishing line between law and popular culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Silbey, Jessica. 2002. What we do when we do law and popular culture. Law and Social Inquiry 27: 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Simon, Adam F., and Michael Xenos. 2000. Media framing and effective public deliberation. Political Communication 17: 363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Slotnick, Elliot E., and Jennifer A. Segal. 1998. Television news and the Supreme Court: All the news that’s fit to air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Stern, Yedidia Z. 2003. Facing painful choices: Law and halakhah in Israeli society. Position paper. Jerusalem: Israel Democracy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Surette, Ray. 1998. Media crime and justice, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tankard, James W. 2001. The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, ed. Stephen Reese, Oscar Gandy, and August E. Grant, 95–106. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Taras, David. 2000. Mass media reporting of Canadian Supreme Court decisions: Mapping the terrain. Canadian Journal of Communication 25. http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=589&layout=html. Accessed July 2006.

  60. Van Dijk, Teun A. 1988. News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Van Dijk, Teun A. 1988. News analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Cases Cited

  1. H.C. Shalit v. Minister of Interior, 23 (1) P.D. 447, translated at Selected Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel, Special Volume, 35 (1971).

  2. H.C. 1031/93 Eliana Pessaro v. Minister of Interior, 49 (4) P.D. 49, abridged in Jewish law Association Studies (2000).

  3. HC 5070/95 Naamat v. Minister of Interior, 56 (2) PD 721. Abridged in 31 Justice, pp. 37–42 (2202).

  4. HC 2597/99 Tushbeim v. Minister of Interior (ruling given on 31.5.2004).

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies of Bar Ilan University, and the School of Law of the College of Management for their support of this project. We would also like to thank Sharon Avital for her efficient assistance in locating and collecting the articles.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Studies, Bar Ilan University, 52900, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Bryna Bogoch

  2. Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science Studies, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

    Bryna Bogoch

  3. School of Law, College of Management, 75190, Rishon Lezion, Israel

    Yifat Holzman-Gazit

Authors
  1. Bryna Bogoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yifat Holzman-Gazit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryna Bogoch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bogoch, B., Holzman-Gazit, Y. Clashing Over Conversion: “Who is a Jew” and Media Representations of an Israeli Supreme Court Decision. Int J Semiot Law 24, 423–445 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9172-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9172-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation